Prosecutors And Head Of FOP Defend Arrests Of People Filming Cops

[Kirk Freeman]

For my own edification, what legal mechanism could the court use to force a dismissal under such circumstances?[ /QUOTE]

Fargo, I usually get them dismissed on a MTD & 37. However, there is a bunch of case law on "missing evidence". I'll get it for you tomorrow when I'm in the office (I'm working on the basement armoury today).

I have mixed results when I find police tapes altered or destroyed.

When I caught the state police and Sheriff destroying evidence I moved to dismiss on the statute and under 37. The prosecutor was so embarrassed that she simply dismissed (and let me add it was the right thing to do. She was a stand up deputy and an asset to the community).

However, when I caught WLPD destroying videos on OWIs the judge found that it was unintentional and denied my motion.

"Sorry, your honor, my client unintentionally flushed that cocaine down the toilet, just like a police officer would."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Fargo, take at the following to see how Indiana handles destroyed evidence:

Roberson, 766 N.E.2d 1185
Terry, 857 N.E.2d 396
Albrecht, 737 N.E.2d 724
Land, 802 N.E.2d 45

Prosecutors always argue that the destroyed/altered tapes were only "potentially useful" and not "materially exculpatory", even on OWIs when the tape is the case (oops, now it's only the officer's word, shocking!) and the sad thing is that the judges may agree with them. We need a higher standard to prevent this rationalization of what everyone knows is going on--if any evidence is destroyed, then the case should be dismissed.

I always find it odd that in the hands of the cops tapes are only "potentially useful" but if my client is accused of destroying or altering tapes like the cops do then it is called "Obstruction of Justice".

Here's the crack cocaine case where I caught the government destroying (well, crushing) the evidence (the kid's car) and the prosecution rightly dismissed: Public Access - Docket List

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a good reason to have everyone film cops in their day to day interactions with innocent people. In Denver the cops have a system to film police actions. In this case the cops on the ground beat the hell out of a guy for talking on his phone (to his dad, who's a cop). When the enforcer takes the decision to go after him and give him a beating the camera "conveniently" zooms out and away, so the interaction isn't filmed. How nice, huh? The charges against the victim in this case were dropped. Fortunately, enough of the video was able to be seen to give the enforcer a 3 day vacation. Wow...extreme punishment. Video at the source.

Denver officials clash over police discipline after brutal video released - The Denver Post

 

[JetGirl]

In this case the cops on the ground beat the hell out of a guy for talking on his phone (to his dad, who's a cop).

Video at the source.

Denver officials clash over police discipline after brutal video released - The Denver Post

Wow.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

When the enforcer takes the decision to go after him and give him a beating the camera "conveniently" zooms out and away, so the interaction isn't filmed.

Police editing or manipulating video is a persistent problem, it ranges from what they do not film to playing with the camera (e.g., conducting field sobriety tests off camera, or first time off camera, then on camera, etc.) to firing up the bulk eraser on audio tapes, blocking the camera, to outright editing.

Outside of criminal prosecutions, which I realize will not happen, I think can be solved with the expansion of evidentiary rules like 617. If something is not taped then case dismissed. As well, in the civil suit if tape is tampered with then that creates a irrebuttable presumption that what the plaintiff states in the complaint creates no material issues and judgment should be granted.

 

[Eddie]

Police editing or manipulating video is a persistent problem, it ranges from what they do not film to playing with the camera (e.g., conducting field sobriety tests off camera, or first time off camera, then on camera, etc.) to firing up the bulk eraser on audio tapes, blocking the camera, to outright editing.

Outside of criminal prosecutions, which I realize will not happen, I think can be solved with the expansion of evidentiary rules like 617. If something is not taped then case dismissed. As well, in the civil suit if tape is tampered with then that creates a irrebuttable presumption that what the plaintiff states in the complaint creates no material issues and judgment should be granted.

This is a problem with taped interviews; they almost never show the two or three hours of questions and accusations that lead to the confession, just the final "rehearsed" confession. I think it is very relevant that a defendant tells 27 different versions of what happened but the police only record the one they want.

 

[hornadylnl]

There's a thing on msnbc now about filming cops.

 

[dross]

Here's a good reason to have everyone film cops in their day to day interactions with innocent people. In Denver the cops have a system to film police actions. In this case the cops on the ground beat the hell out of a guy for talking on his phone (to his dad, who's a cop). When the enforcer takes the decision to go after him and give him a beating the camera "conveniently" zooms out and away, so the interaction isn't filmed. How nice, huh? The charges against the victim in this case were dropped. Fortunately, enough of the video was able to be seen to give the enforcer a 3 day vacation. Wow...extreme punishment. Video at the source.

Denver officials clash over police discipline after brutal video released - The Denver Post

There MUST be something that the video isn't showing. I'm sure there's some reason this could have happned that is perfectly reasonable police behavior. LEOs?

 

[Fargo]

Fargo, take at the following to see how Indiana handles destroyed evidence:

Roberson, 766 N.E.2d 1185
Terry, 857 N.E.2d 396
Albrecht, 737 N.E.2d 724
Land, 802 N.E.2d 45

Prosecutors always argue that the destroyed/altered tapes were only "potentially useful" and not "materially exculpatory", even on OWIs when the tape is the case (oops, now it's only the officer's word, shocking!) and the sad thing is that the judges may agree with them. We need a higher standard to prevent this rationalization of what everyone knows is going on--if any evidence is destroyed, then the case should be dismissed.

I always find it odd that in the hands of the cops tapes are only "potentially useful" but if my client is accused of destroying or altering tapes like the cops do then it is called "Obstruction of Justice".

Here's the crack cocaine case where I caught the government destroying (well, crushing) the evidence (the kid's car) and the prosecution rightly dismissed: Public Access - Docket List

Thanks for the cites Kirk, I appreciate it. If PH treats you so well as to have his deputies dump cases where there are this sort of shenanigans, you must have a pretty decent prosecutors office up there. I know some counties where that would likely not happen.

Best,


Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Fargo, yes, that case was outside the norm for Tippecanoe County but it ended justly.

 

[dross]

Here's a good reason to have everyone film cops in their day to day interactions with innocent people. In Denver the cops have a system to film police actions. In this case the cops on the ground beat the hell out of a guy for talking on his phone (to his dad, who's a cop). When the enforcer takes the decision to go after him and give him a beating the camera "conveniently" zooms out and away, so the interaction isn't filmed. How nice, huh? The charges against the victim in this case were dropped. Fortunately, enough of the video was able to be seen to give the enforcer a 3 day vacation. Wow...extreme punishment. Video at the source.

Denver officials clash over police discipline after brutal video released - The Denver Post

Update:

NewsFirst5.com | Colorado Springs news, Colorado Springs weather, Pueblo news, Pueblo weather | Independent Denver Monitor says cops should be dismissed

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Reports of the incident were filed by both officers, who were not identified, and each paint a picture of a violent DeHerrera attempting to strike one of the officers

Exhibit A as to why if there is no video there should be no conviction.

The video shows one of the officers taking DeHerrera to the ground in a violent manner, injuring DeHerrera's face.

No, no, no! He was "guided to the ground."

 

[dross]

Exhibit A as to why if there is no video there should be no conviction.



No, no, no! He was "guided to the ground."

Yeah, in my younger paratrooper days, I "guided" some faces to the ground in barfights in a similar manner.